2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 10, 2007

Morning Sitting

Volume 20, Number 6

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Committee of the Whole House

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007

(Bill 26)

A. Dix

Hon. G. Abbott

Reporting of Bills

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007

(Bill 26)

Third Reading of Bills

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007

(Bill 26)

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health

(continued)

A. Dix

Hon. G. Abbott

C. Wyse

N. Macdonald

M. Sather

Proceedings in

the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Sport

and the Arts (continued)

N. Macdonald

Hon. S. Hagen

H. Bains

G. Gentner

[ Page 7811 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 10, 2007

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. B. Penner: In this House, I call committee stage

debate of Bill 26, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. For the information of

members, in Committee A we'll be resuming estimates debate for the Ministry of

Tourism, Sport and the Arts.

[1005]

Committee of the Whole House

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 26; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 10:06 a.m.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

A. Dix: We're on a roll. For the information particularly

of people in the sector, perhaps the minister can explain the purpose of these

amendments with respect to the definition of care facility. We might, in

fairness, be allowed to ask him to wander and deal with these amendments as a

whole and just talk about the protections that will be available, particularly

for those living in small unlicensed residences.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. This

is an important

section and certainly an appropriate one to be asking exactly

the questions that the member is.

This

section really revolves around the issue of consent and of

informed consent. It aims at ensuring that patients have the protections that

they should have and that they need when they are being admitted or, conversely,

discharged from a hospital or a comparable health facility.

The issue of admissions is complicated at times by the capacity or

incapacity of the individual who may need the admission to hospital. This

section and, really, this bill are about how we build a network or a series of

protections to ensure that where informed consent is possible, it is provided,

but where for reasons of incapacity informed consent is not possible, how we

structure the admissions policy to ensure that the rights of the patient are

protected.

[1010]

A. Dix: Just briefly, so I understand, we'll be debating

another bill at another time around advanced care directives, and that's a whole

other set of issues. Are any of the changes here at all connected to that? Or

are these just changes that were required outside of the discussion around

advanced care directives, which will obviously be a subject of lengthy debate in

the Legislature?

Hon. G. Abbott: It is primarily coincidental that they are

being introduced at the same time. They are certainly designed to be supportive

and complementary, but one doesn't necessarily depend on the other.

A. Dix: So it's really unchanged and has no impact on

representation agreements?

Hon. G. Abbott: That's correct.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

A. Dix: Just quickly on

section 8. This

section deals with

the use of restraint against a person in care. I think some of this is

housekeeping and closing the loopholes, but perhaps the minister could just

explain what impact this has both on the rights of patients and on the rights of

care providers, and how these issues are dealt with.

Hon. G. Abbott: The use of restraints, I'm advised, is

already permitted in statute. The aim of this

section is to provide more

protections to the patient with respect to the appropriate use of restraints.

Regulations will be developed pursuant to this section, and the aim of those

provisions will be to ensure that restraints are only used as a last resort when

it is manifestly in the interest of the patient to do so.

A. Dix: Sometimes these issues, in terms of the role of

families and their concerns about the treatment of patients and so on, become

really important. Can the minister talk about what efforts will be made to

ensure that patients understand their rights in this regard and any changes —

and their families and those that represent them in whatever form, under

representation agreements or whatever?

Will there be some effort to inform both care providers and the

care provider community but also to provide, perhaps on the ministry's website

or in other ministry communications, what impact this will have and what the

issues are for patients?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that there will be

consultations both with the patient and with advocate communities as well as

with the provider community. There will also be education efforts with the

provider community on not only this

section but the bill as a whole, should it

be successful in this Legislature.

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

[1015]

[ Page 7812 ]

A. Dix: With respect to these changes that will come in the

following sections, just at the beginning, I presume this will bring about a

change in the status of the employees. In other words, the employees in

bargaining would not be part of the broader public service now with the changes

that come about here. In fact, those employees will transfer to bargaining with

the commission. I just wanted to check on that.

I want to check if the ministry has consulted with the employees,

with the union and with others about that, and I just want to clarify that

that's the case. I'll deal with these questions right now, Minister, if that's

okay, as a whole — there's not many on this

section of the bill — so that we can

then move through the rest of the sections around emergency services.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's analysis is correct. They will

be employees of the commission, but of course the commission is a

government-funded entity as well.

A. Dix: Presumably, the employees either have been

consulted about this or were consulted about this change as the bill was coming

in. Obviously, even though they're still going to be employees of the government

and everything else, this changes in some ways their relationship with

management.

I just want to see if the minister has consulted or will consult.

Presumably, it's the expectation that the commission will engage with the

employees now that this bill would transfer them under their jurisdiction.

Hon. G. Abbott: There has been a full consultative process

with the employees and managers in respect of this matter, and I think the shift

here is being strongly embraced.

Sections 11 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

A. Dix: Since we're shortly going to have a discussion in

the House on issues around the Ambulance Service, I think we'll save some of the

questions we have around that, and on the implications of changes, for that

time.

Sections 14 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

A. Dix: The minister will have received, as I did, the

letter from Mr. Loukidelis. I'll give everyone a moment to change. For people

watching, this is a miscellaneous bill, so there are different sections that

deal with different issues. These are the issues dealing with PharmaNet.

Would the minister briefly describe his response in general — I

know we're going to see an amendment on

section 23 — to the concerns raised by

the Information and Privacy Commissioner — the need across these sections to

ensure that exceptions to privacy be as narrow and limited as possible, and so

on? Could the minister maybe summarize his response as a whole to the concerns

raised by the commissioner?

[1020]

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm going to be guided by the member's

suggestion that I move through quickly on those six areas. As is the case when

we get into the area of freedom of information and protection of privacy,

there's a realm of complexity that one can enter into rather quickly, actually,

whether one intends to or not.

To summarize, the commissioner made six suggestions for the

ministry in respect of this bill. The first area revolves around the amendment

which will be made to

section 23. With that amendment, the commissioner's

concern, as we understand it, has been resolved.

On the second area, which revolved around the expression "other

information," the commissioner is now satisfied and states that: "We now have no

concern with this aspect of the proposed provisions."

The third area he raised was the use of the term "person." That

concern has now been resolved, and he states: "In this light, we have no

concerns with these sections."

The fourth area is around the information-sharing between

PharmaNet and health information data banks. The commissioner says: "We are

satisfied that information-sharing…by the above PPODSA and PODSA amendments will

be sufficiently circumscribed."

Area 5, electronic auditing. We're committed to working together

with the commissioner to ensure that that is done in an appropriate way.

On penalties for privacy abuse, the ministry and the commissioner

are, again, committed to working together to ensure long-term resolution of

those issues.

Sections 21 and 22 approved.

section 23.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment standing in my name on

the order paper in respect of

section 23.

[SECTION 23, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

Section 36 is repealed and the following substituted:

Confidentiality

(1) A person must not record personal health information in PharmaNet except in accordance with this Act.

(2) Despite the Personal Information Protection Act , a person who obtains information, files or records under this Act must not use them, or disclose them to any other person, except

(

a) for the purposes permitted by this Act,

(

b) for the purposes of carrying out a duty under the bylaws, or

(

c) as required by law.

(

a) in the administration of this Act,

(

b) for the purposes of court proceedings, or

(

c) for the purpose of enabling the college, or a person or committee acting for the college, to carry out their powers, duties or functions under this Act or the bylaws.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to

(

a) a person in respect of his or her own personal health information, or

(

b) a personal representative acting in the course of his or her duties.]

[ Page 7813 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 23 as amended approved.

Sections 24 to 26 inclusive approved.

section 27.

A. Dix: Just briefly on

section 27, I want to ask the

minister to explain the intent here. It seems that this will extend some of the

limits on disclosure of personal health information, amongst other things, for

the purpose of market research.

I just want to ask the minister the intent here and to explain to

the House what this

section hopes to achieve.

[1025]

Hon. G. Abbott: The purpose of this

section is twofold. One

is to specifically prohibit what is already done by policy — prohibiting

disclosure of health-related information for market research purposes. But it

also ensures that the appropriate disclosure of health information remains

possible to health researchers and health research institutions, like those

related to the Michael Smith Foundation.

Sections 27 to 40 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that the committee rise and report

the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 10:27 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Bill 26, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete

with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. G. Abbott: With leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Bill 26, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, read a third time

and passed.

Hon. T. Christensen: I now call continued estimates debate

for the Ministry of Health.

[1030]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Hammell in the

chair.

The committee met at 10:34 a.m.

On Vote 36: ministry operations, $12,819,670,000 (continued).

A. Dix: This morning we're going to ask questions about the

B.C. Ambulance Service. The minister has asserted in the media, and the

Ambulance Service has asserted, that there are 43 net additional ambulances in

the province today over, I believe he said, 2002 — although I might be mistaken

in that. Does the minister have information as to where those ambulances are?

Many people working in the Ambulance Service find themselves perplexed by that

assertion. So I'm curious to know where those ambulances, which the minister

claims exist, are actually in operation.

[1035]

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of the exact number of physical

ambulances that would be located in any given station, we haven't got that level

of detail with us today.

I can advise the member that there are 186 ambulance stations in

the province. There are within those ambulance stations — this is '06-07 — 466

ambulances and 40 support vehicles. That compares to 441 ambulances and 28

support vehicles in '01-02, 435 ambulances and 25 support vehicles in '02-03 and

457 ambulances and 27 support vehicles in '03-04, and so on.

So it is a gradual trend upward in terms of the number of actual

ambulance vehicles. The number of stations also has incrementally grown over

time. I think that's the correct response.

A. Dix: Just in terms of information, there's a lot of

debate about how many available street paramedics there are in British Columbia.

My information is that in 2002 there were, full-time and

part-time, 3,152 total street paramedics. Today there are 3,119 in British

Columbia, on a provincial call volume that I think the minister will acknowledge

has increased dramatically more than that. I'm guessing what the minister will

say is that there's been some shift from part-time to full-time ambulance

paramedics.

Nonetheless, does he believe that, especially in communities such

as Vancouver and Surrey — we're going to focus on rural-remote communities in a

moment — the truly dramatic increases in call volumes in communities such as

Surrey…. I think that in the last five years — between 2000-2001 and 2004-2005;

I guess

[ Page 7814 ]

that's four years — there was an increase of some 7,000 calls in total yearly

calls, which is almost an increase of 50 percent.

Does he think that, in fact, the number of stations in the lower

mainland is adequate? Does he think that the number of paramedics available to

work is adequate? I think that significant numbers of the increases have been on

the dispatch side.

What plans does the minister have to ensure that there are

adequate numbers of paramedics in the coming years?

[1040]

Hon. G. Abbott: We would just like to get this clarity from

the member so that we fully understand his question.

Is he including in the number — which I think he took from 2001 —

the number of unpaid volunteer paramedics that existed at that time? Is he

including that in the number?

A. Dix: The minister may have misheard. I think the

statistics I gave him were between 2002 and 2006.

Hon. G. Abbott: If we understood the member correctly, he

is looking at the years 2002-2003, and it does include unpaid volunteer

paramedics. Is that correct?

A. Dix: It's my understanding that it does, yes.

Hon. G. Abbott: The reason why I made a point of asking the

member whether he was including unpaid part-time volunteer paramedics in that

number is because to get a true indication of the level of commitment and

investment in paramedics, one really needs to look at the full-time equivalence

of that. The full-time equivalence really tells us about the number of service

hours that are being provided to protect the public with the B.C. Ambulance

Service.

I'll give the member a comprehensive answer here, as I am

occasionally wont to do. For 2006-2007, the number of full-time FTEs — and this

is the paramedics — is 1,497.3. That's FTEs — and an additional 964.48

part-time, but paid.

If we look back to 2001-2002, it was 1,254.85 full-time FTEs and

550.55 part-time. Again, I won't go through all of these. What we see in each

case for both full-time and part-time is that if we take that period from '01-02

through to '06-07, there are incremental increases in full-time and part-time

year over year, every year, through to '06-07 when we have the largest number

ever in the history of British Columbia.

Similarly, if you're looking at the BCGEU side of this, also

incremental growth year over year, and on excluded management, also growth —

consistent growth — year over year in the service as well.

The reason why we see that year-over-year growth in the number of

paramedics, both full-time and part-time, is that year over year we see quite

remarkable demand increases on the B.C. Ambulance Service. Every year we see

close to a 10-percent increase in the demand side for the B.C. Ambulance

Service, so we've responded.

To answer the member's question, yes, I'm certainly comfortable

that we have improved the number of skilled paramedics to respond to the

situation. We know that we've got additional work to do, particularly in some of

the rural and remote areas where it has historically been difficult to recruit

and retain paramedics.

[1045]

That continues to be a challenge. In a buoyant economy where

people are being attracted away to higher-paid jobs outside their home

communities, it is particularly challenging. The excellent folks at the B.C.

Ambulance Service are working each and every day on aggressive recruitment

measures to try to get out there and identify new paramedics.

A. Dix: The minister will know, of course, that paramedics

themselves and their representatives believe that, in fact, the situation in the

Ambulance Service is very serious and critical now. They have expressed those

views to the minister, and it will be no surprise that they have expressed those

views to the minister.

They describe their workloads and their challenges in very stark

terms. We're going to review the rural and remote issues in a moment. In urban

areas currently, I gather…. The response time standard of nine minutes in the

lower mainland is met less than 70 percent of time. The minister's target is 70

percent. This would be, as I understand it, in spite of the fact that the

minister said in the House last week that the response times were improving.

They haven't been improving in the lower mainland in that time. It's not

surprising.

We have to say, first of all, the extraordinary work that

ambulance paramedics do. The lower mainland today is a more challenging place —

those of us who have to drive in it, have to operate in it — than it was ten

years ago in terms of getting around. But response times in the lower mainland

are getting worse.

The pressure on the ambulance stations — I have one about a block

and a half from my home — is enormous. The area, at times, that they have to

cover is extraordinary. The station in Joyce Collingwood covers out to Eagle

Ridge at times. You have stations going far and wide trying in a patchwork

fashion to cover the pressures that they face.

I want to ask the minister about response times. The data, I have

to say, hasn't been consistently kept in a sort of similar manner over time. But

it would seem that since the 1990s period, response times in the lower mainland

have got worse, and there are extraordinary pressures on paramedics today that

they are not able to respond to. So I would like to ask the minister about that.

I would like to ask the minister if he'd commit to answer us in

writing as to where the 43 incremental ambulances are — or the 43 vehicles, not

ambulances, because I think some of them are support vehicles. I understand that

Mr. Lee Doney has been hired to make significant changes to the Ambulance

Service. I want to ask the minister whether he has plans presently to offload

some of the responsibilities of the Ambulance Service to other services such as

B.C. NurseLine — which is a very good service, in fact, but it's no replacement

for the emergency services provided by ambulances.

[ Page 7815 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: The member has raised at least three

important issues here, so I think what we should do, if it's okay with the

member…. Can he come back to the last Lee Doney question, if he wouldn't mind?

A. Dix: Sure.

Hon. G. Abbott: We can try to get clarity around the

important issue of response times. It is challenging. Clearly, in every case,

whether we're talking lower mainland and urban settings or whether we're talking

rural or remote settings, the ambulance response times are a very important

element in the service that we deliver.

When I made the comments that I did in the House…. I can't

remember whether it was early this week or late last week; time kind of drifts

by for me. But it was recently when we talked about that in the House. I was

referring specifically to the interior and the north of British Columbia, the

area outside the lower mainland, when I made reference to the substantial

improvements that we have been making in ambulance response times.

I've actually got the detail on all of that. So this is the

comparison between basically '03-04 and '05-06, and it reflects the change that

was made in the staffing model pursuant to the agreement with the Canadian Union

of Public Employees in that collective agreement.

[1050]

The response time improvements between those two years range from

a 34-percent improvement in 100 Mile House; on the lower end, Ashcroft,

15-percent improvement; Invermere, 34-percent improvement; and so on down the

line with Trail, an 11-percent improvement. They would be on the lower side.

On average, if you take the aggregated numbers for those three

dozen communities in the interior of British Columbia, the aggregated

improvement time is 21 percent. Some communities are a little better than

21-percent improvement; some are a little less than 21-percent improvement.

Overall, by having on call staff in the ambulance stations, we've

been able to improve those response times in all of those communities. That's

something we take great satisfaction in.

Again, we're not ever satisfied with response time. Continuous

improvement is the order of the day here, as it is in all parts of the health

care delivery system. Certainly, we've seen some very good numbers there that

are encouraging and speak well to the commitment of both paramedics and managers

in the system across the province.

When we move to the lower mainland, of course, with the rapid

growth we've seen with all of the traffic issues we have, particularly at

certain hours of the day, it can be challenging to move an ambulance from point

A to point B in as quick a time as we would like.

This is an ongoing challenge, and undoubtedly as we see continued

urban growth, particularly in the lower mainland area, we'll continue to have

this as a challenge. We've seen over the past three years about a 20-percent

increase in ambulance call-out in the lower mainland. The volume of calls is

growing, and also the environment in which those call-outs are being made is

also growing — again, a challenging thing.

Nevertheless — and again I think this speaks well to the work that

has been undertaken by the B.C. Ambulance Service and its many managers and

employees — the average response time for urgent calls in the lower mainland was

eight minutes and 54 seconds in 2005-2006. It was eight minutes and 35 seconds

in '04-05, and it was eight minutes and 53 seconds in '03-04.

Despite those challenges around increased volumes and urban growth

that tend to get in the way of the quick movement of ambulances, we have been

able to maintain those average response times in the lower mainland. I think

that speaks well to the dedication of the service. We know it's a challenge, but

we also know that people are stepping up to that challenge and continuing to

deliver timely service.

There are occasions when obviously things go wrong and we see

ambulances confronted by logistical challenges that are very difficult to

overcome. Fortunately, the partnership we have with ambulance services in terms

of first responders has been of enormous assistance on those occasions.

Sometimes the ability of ambulance services to get there quicker than even fire

departments, on occasion, is also of advantage to them.

This is a very good partnership we have with first responders, and

it has served to continue to see British Columbians receive excellent ambulance

service from the B.C. Ambulance Service and the paramedics that work within it.

A. Dix: I think the only problem with that is that the

paramedics who actually work in the service would disagree with what the

minister says. I won't list off the many cases of 21-minute, 25-minute,

14-minute, 17-minute, 15-minute responses — individual cases they have before

them. I'd be happy to share those with the minister and his staff.

[1055]

Look at a couple of stations — station 246, which is in my riding

of Vancouver-Kingsway, for example — just to consider the scope and the

territory that a station has to cover. It's not the most challenged station in

the province in this regard, but it's in my riding, and I know it well.

I'll mention to the minister that I used to work in New

Westminster. In 2005-06 years there were 773 calls from that station in total

responses to New Westminster. As I say, I used to work near that ambulance

station. I used to drive to New Westminster every day, and none of those calls

can be nine minutes. They just can't be, in terms of the distance. I think it

shows that there simply has to be….

I asked the minister about this, and what hasn't happened is….

We've had a significant increase in population. We have to assume that the new

population will have a similar proportion of traffic accidents and heart attacks

and other issues that require assis-

[ Page 7816 ]

tance, and we haven't seen commensurate with that increase in demand, that

increase in calls, an increase in resources. So we sometimes have stations

covering vast areas of the lower mainland.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

I think it's reasonable, as a region grows, to say that there are

also more taxpayers and more resources to pay. These are, by definition,

essential services.

I'll just give the minister other examples. Delta: 1,345 calls

from Delta to Vancouver — again, not calls that can be done within the time

frame that's required. Not all those calls are emergency response calls, but

still that shows, I think, the extent and the reach that stations have.

The staff, paramedics say it's not enough. Staff and paramedics

say the system is at a breaking point. They don't accept…. I think the minister

would have to agree that paramedics, who are on the ground and living with this

every day, have some knowledge of this issue too.

I want to ask the minister, in terms of the lower mainland….

Given, really, some of the very lengthy response times we've seen, sometimes the

extraordinary territorial area when one station is called out but that other

stations have to reach, doesn't the minister agree with me that there simply has

to be — commensurate with that increase in population, in tax base, in demand

and call volume — an increase in resources?

Instead, what I fear is being contemplated is in fact a reduction

of that service or — presumably, I don't know — a privatization of part of that

service in order to meet that demand. So I want to ask the minister: what are

his plans?

He mentioned the Lee Doney report — the Lee Doney process which

Mr. Doney is leading. I want to ask: when was Mr. Doney was hired? Why was he

hired? What is his mandate? What does the minister plan to do with Mr. Doney's

process?

Hon. G. Abbott: If I understand correctly the thesis that

is being advanced by the opposition Health critic, it is that the budget, the

resources that are provided by the government to the B.C. Ambulance Service

should increase to reflect growth in the tax base of the province and the growth

in the population of the province. If I understand the member's submission, that

is it in a nutshell. If we take that thesis or submission….

A. Dix: And the call volume.

Hon. G. Abbott: And the call volume — fine. We'll add the

call volume on to that as well.

[1100]

If we look at the budget of the B.C. Ambulance Service over the

past six years, I think what you'll find, in fact, is that we have achieved

precisely what the member has set out. When we took office in 2001, the budget

for the B.C. Ambulance Service was $176 million. It has grown year over year,

approximately 10-percent lifts year over year since 2001. In fiscal '07-08 the

budget for the B.C. Ambulance Service is going to be $283 million. Compared to

the $176 million when we took office, that is an increase of 62 percent.

That is a staggering level of growth in a single function within

the health care delivery system — 62 percent over six years. I guess the member

can argue, as he sometimes does, that there's just no limit to what we should

put into anything, but this is a huge commitment on the part of the government

to continue to deliver effective ambulance services. A 62-percent increase is

huge.

I would challenge anyone to tell me any area of government service

delivery, with the possible exception of Pharmacare, that has a comparable

increase over six years of 62 percent. It's certainly more than, I think, the

growth in the tax base — probably well more than the growth in the population,

probably about ten times more than the growth in the population.

It is reflective of the growth in call volumes, but it certainly

isn't any less than the growth in call volumes. I think, in fact, I would have

to say that the member's thesis has been fulfilled by the government in every

imaginable way.

Turning to Mr. Lee Doney. Mr. Doney is the new Emergency Health

Services Commission executive officer.

My apologies, hon. Chair. I should say that Mr. Fred Platteel is

with me on my left today. He is the chief executive officer of the B.C.

Ambulance Service and is joined on my right by Gord Macatee who is my deputy

minister.

Lee is with us as the new executive officer for the Emergency

Health Services Commission. The Emergency Health Services Commission has the

legislated mandate to ensure the provision of pre-hospital emergency health care

services throughout the province.

Besides the B.C. Ambulance Service, it was announced in March 2006

— and actually we've just done some legislation pursuant to this — that the

Emergency Health Services Commission would also assume responsibility for B.C.

NurseLine, B.C. Bedline and the B.C. HealthGuide programs.

The commission is expanding to include all of those programs. This

will combine all pre-hospital emergency health services under one umbrella and

will allow for better emergency care for British Columbians. I think that on

some occasions it will ensure that we get the best, most appropriate response to

the level of concern that is raised as people call one of those lines to get the

best advice they can from the health professionals who are at our end of the

line.

A. Dix: Well, the minister calls it adequate. Let's just go

through it.

The number of CUPE members has increased by 2 percent in a context

of a call volume that everyone admits has gone up dramatically. Admittedly, the

number of excluded managers has increased very dramatically. I don't know how

one would explain that.

Overall, the number of available street paramedics has gone down

in the last four years. There has been some increase in full-time paramedics,

but nothing like

[ Page 7817 ]

the rate of growth of the call volume. And there has been a reduction in the

number of part-time paramedics.

People can judge because, after all, it's the numbers on the

ground who actually serve people. It's those numbers that matter, and clearly

those numbers are not going up commensurate with the increase in demand. What

matters to people most when they need help is whether a paramedic will be there

to help them.

I want to ask the minister in that regard about the following

stations. Station 402, Castlegar: increase in call volume over ten years, 129

percent; downgraded from full-time to part-time positions. Grand Forks: increase

in call volume over ten years, 67 percent; downgraded from full-time to

part-time positions. Invermere: increase in call volume, 122 percent; downgraded

from full-time to part-time positions.

[1105]

Then equivalent numbers for Fernie, Sooke, Port McNeill, Qualicum

Beach, Chemainus, Armstrong, Ashcroft, Chase, Merritt, Oliver, Osoyoos,

Princeton, Revelstoke and Winfield — all of those with increases in volume of

between 100 and 268 percent, and all of them downsized from full-time to

part-time paramedics.

I wonder if the minister can explain…. Just for the minister's

edification, 94,087 people live in those communities. Why, with an increase in

call volume, would you go from full-time to part-time employees?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, the member is misconstruing and

misrepresenting the number of paramedics in this province. What he's saying is

simply not true. If you take a paramedic who worked for 20 hours in the year and

you compare it to a paramedic who worked full-time or worked 800 hours during

the year and say that the paramedic that worked 20 hours a year was equivalent

to the paramedic who worked 800 hours a year, then that's just, frankly,

misleading.

What I did earlier on today was to provide for the House the

numbers, on an FTE basis, of full-time and part-time paramedics in this

province. The numbers I laid out clearly showed the increase.

Again, you can compare it any way you wish, but regardless of how

you do it, we are seeing improvement — and dramatic improvement — in the number

of service hours that are being provided by both full-time and part-time

paramedics in this province. So to take a figure like…. Well, there used to be

more people working fewer hours. That is unrepresentative of the level of

service that the province receives, and I hope the member can agree with me on

that point. I guess if he disagrees, we can continue this debate.

But if we are seeing a dramatic improvement in terms of FTEs,

which is the real measure of how many service hours there are for communities

across this province…. That's the real measure, not whether we had ten people

working ten hours for a total of 100 hours or we had five working 500 hours for

a total of 2,500 hours. Clearly, we are doing more.

I can bury the member in data here if we want to play this game. I

will. I'll bury the member in data to demonstrate that, in fact, we are having

way more service hours today by B.C. Ambulance Service than was the case in

2001. There has been dramatic improvement.

The member says: "Well, there have been increases in call volumes

in a whole bunch of these communities, and how come we don't have certain

positions there?" Well, the changes have been made pursuant to the memorandum of

agreement that exists between CUPE 873 and the B.C. Ambulance Service. It has

resulted in better service.

I know some want to grind relentlessly to continue collective

bargaining discussions in processes like estimates and question period, but the

fact of the matter is that we have had a 62-percent increase in the budget of

B.C. Ambulance Service over six years. That's a huge increase. We have improved

service in communities across the province.

The member mentioned a number of communities. I don't know whether

we have a list of them with us here.

[1110]

This is all improvement side: 100 Mile House, 34 percent;

Ashcroft, 15 percent; Barriere, 16 percent; Castlegar, 21 percent; Chase, the

member mentioned, 21 percent; Clearwater, 21 percent; Creston, 32 percent;

Fernie, I think the member mentioned, 28 percent; Golden, 18 percent; Grand

Forks, 13 percent; Invermere, the member mentioned, 34 percent; Keremeos, 22

percent; Kimberley, 31 percent; Lillooet, 31 percent; Merritt, 18 percent;

Oliver, 24 percent; Osoyoos, 23 percent; Peachland, 12 percent; Princeton, 13

percent; Revelstoke, 27 percent; Sicamous, my home town, 21 percent; Summerland,

18 percent; Trail, 11 percent — for an aggregated improvement across those

municipalities and areas of 21 percent.

I don't know where the…. Again, the members are trying to

construct a straw horse or a straw man here and then beat it up.

You start with the budget: a 62 percent increase. You look at the

number of ambulances: increasing. You look at the number of paramedics:

increasing. You look at service times: increasing. You look at service

improvement times: improving. All of those things suggest, actually, a very good

service. Has it got challenges? Of course it does. We always look forward to the

constructive advice of members on how to improve them.

R. Hawes: I seek leave to make an introduction.

The Chair: Continue.

Introductions by Members

R. Hawes: In the gallery today there are 38 students from

Meadowridge Secondary School, which is an independent school in my riding in

Maple Ridge. This is just an absolutely first-class school that always scores

very, very high in every regard. They're with their teacher James Clelland. He

is assisted by Jim Davies, another teacher from Meadowridge. Could the House

[ Page 7818 ]

please make welcome these 38 fine young students from Meadowridge.

Debate Continued

C. Wyse: To the minister: So that he has an idea where I'm

going to be starting from, initially I will start in my riding with a couple of

situations that exist that he is familiar with and move from my riding out

beyond it into rural-remote designated communities.

It may be a good reminder — when we talk about the transportation

system, which is the ambulance taking people that require care to the hospital,

the care centres — that there has also been a closure of hospitals through the

same corresponding period of time. That has increased some stress upon the

transporting system, the ambulance system.

Eventually I will come back to that component of it, but for

starters, the minister is well aware of a situation that occurred in my riding

at Alexis Creek on April 21. It was a very unfortunate incident that did

transpire. Alexis Creek has a remote station which, once more, was out of

service.

As has been drawn to the minister's attention on a number of

occasions, Alexis Creek is out of service very regularly. For example, in the

month of April of this year it was out of service for 15 out of 30 days, and for

May of this year it's projected to be out of service for 23 out of the 31 days.

This conversation around this large geographical area has been

ongoing with the minister from quite a period of time. My question to the

minister is: when will the Chilcotin be provided with the ambulance services as

established by the B.C. Ambulance Service itself?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member raised a number of important

issues in his initial comments, and I'll try to deal with those. I look forward

to the member raising issues around hospital closures. I certainly know how

difficult hospital closures can be.

[1115]

Back in the 1990s I had two hospitals closed in my constituency.

My community hospital in Enderby was announced for closure by the former

Minister of Health for the NDP in 1999, and in 1997 a former NDP Health Minister

announced the closure of Armstrong hospital, also in my constituency, so I have

some experience with that.

I know it's challenging for communities. It's challenging for

regions when hospitals are closed. But you know, whether it's an NDP government

or a B.C. Liberal government, sometimes there is a case made around how to get

the best value from the many taxpayer dollars that we devote to this area of

public enterprise, so we try to do that.

In terms of the important issue, and I think this will be one of

those occasions when there's maybe some measure of agreement around this point….

The stations at Alexis Creek and Anahim Lake and Clinton have been particularly

problematic stations for us historically. This was not an issue that began in

2003 or 2004. If we went back a decade, it was a challenge then as well.

They are small communities that have had some chronic challenges

in terms of recruitment and retention of paramedics in those stations. And it

continues to be a problem. I don't for a moment quarrel with the member around

that point. We want to improve the in-service hours at all three of those

stations because we want to have full coverage. This is something we'd agree

with the member on.

Having said yes, we agree that how we get there can be a challenge

as well. We've got a program in place, which we hope is going to be of

assistance in reaching the goal that I think we commonly share with the member.

I'll talk about that in a moment.

Just to give you a sense of the magnitude of the challenge, if we

look at those stations in 2006 and the out-of-service hours, the station was in

service 77 percent of the time, meaning that about 23 percent of the time it was

out of service as a consequence of not having staffing available to keep it in

service. That's Alexis Creek.

Anahim Lake is somewhat better; 84 percent of time was in service

in 2006 — still 16 percent of time out of service. In Clinton we have actually

seen some improvement there in terms of in-service time — 93 percent of the time

was in service in Clinton. So that's good. We're still concerned, though — and I

know the member is — with the 7 percent out-of-service time that we have in that

location.

On the issue of paramedic retention and recruitment, there's been

much work done in the last couple of years, because we do want to improve in

this area. We have, in particular, launched targeted recruitment initiatives in

the Queen Charlotte Islands, which apparently are meeting with some pretty good

success. There have been some chronic issues in Queen Charlotte Islands with

respect to retention and recruitment. The initiative seems to be working and

working well there.

In Nakusp, which I know the member for Nelson-Creston is very

concerned about, we seem to be making some headway on our initiative in Nakusp,

which has had some chronic issues on the paramedic side.

Robson Valley, Valemount and McBride, which the Education Minister

is much concerned with, and on the north Island…. We've undertaken some

initiatives there, and we're learning from those initiatives. Hopefully, we will

see part of the solution to the challenge we face through those initiatives.

In addition, B.C. Ambulance Service is exploring opportunities to

partner with health authorities to integrate the skills of paramedics in local

health care facilities. The member will remember that when we had an opportunity

to get together, on a few occasions actually, at the Union of B.C.

Municipalities convention last year, some of the communities came to me and came

to the province with some innovative ideas about how we might integrate

paramedics into nursing outposts or small clinical stations in some of the

smaller communities.

[1120]

We certainly welcomed those suggestions. We're working with those

communities to see if there's some way that we can kind of build some synergy

between the health care delivery that is there in those small

[ Page 7819 ]

communities and the paramedics. It's a challenge on both sides of the

equation, and perhaps there are some synergies we can develop to improve on

that.

As well, in 2006-2007, B.C. Ambulance Service invested $78,000 in

EMR courses for ambulance staff who were previously only licensed to the

occupational first-aid level. So we're investing to improve the skills of our

paramedics.

Actually, I have a fair bit of detail here around the partnership

that B.C. Ambulance is building with the Kootenay area — the Nakusp–Arrow Lakes

area. I'm glad to go through that with the member, but in the interests of time

I won't take it there. I do have some very useful information in respect of the

initiative in Nakusp, in Queen Charlottes and in the Robson Valley.

C. Wyse: I have a colleague who has a question or two that

he would like to ask you. He has to be in another meeting. If it's agreeable

with the minister, I will come back and pick up my line of questioning once my

colleague here — that one over there — asks his questions.

N. Macdonald: First, I thank my colleague for giving me the

opportunity. I need to get back to estimates in the other house. The question

that I have…. Like many members from the interior, and in my riding as well,

there are a whole host of issues that come up around paramedics. I think we all

agree that this is a service that we need to get right.

The specific issue that I want to bring to the attention of the

minister — one that I'm sure he's heard about, but one that needs to be

addressed quickly — is around the Revelstoke situation. It is one of the most

challenging highways. It is a community that is, of course, relatively isolated

and needs the service for itself and also for the people who travel on our

national highway over what, I think the minister would agree, is one of the most

dangerous sections of the highway. It relates to the ambulance station.

The government made a number of changes. The minister will allude

to the $10-an-hour…. He'll allude to some of those changes. Amongst them was the

requirement to stay at the station.

What I would put to the minister is: with the decision by the

government to do that, there would be a requirement to make sure that paramedics

had the facilities that would allow them to stay at the station. In Revelstoke's

case, it very quickly became impossible for them to stay at the station. For the

past year they've had a series of situations that, I think the minister would

agree, are unacceptable.

The situation is this. They needed to move out of the facility

that they had been in for a long time. That relates to the fact that they had to

stay at the station. They then went to a motel. The ambulance was kept outside.

I know the minister is from Salmon Arm, but the difference in snow from Salmon

Arm to Revelstoke is substantial. There were a whole host of complicating issues

that were caused by the fact that they stayed in the motel and the ambulances

were outside.

From there they went to another facility, which I'm sure staff

that surround the minister would tell him was completely unacceptable. I

recognize that Ambulance Service was scrambling to find appropriate facilities,

but they were even being told not to sweep because it would stir up dust that

was unhealthy for them.

I had an opportunity to visit. One whole side of that facility was

filled with propane tanks. They were told they couldn't stay there because of a

fire danger — so a whole host of problems.

I would make two points with the minister. First, there is an

obligation, if you're going to change the conditions of work, to make sure that

it is thought through and that you have a situation that works for the

paramedics. I need to point out to the minister that these paramedics have, of

course, adjusted very well, and they have continued to do a tremendous job. But

what is clearly needed is a purpose-built ambulance station.

[1125]

The idea that they would stay another winter with their ambulance

outside and them staying in the motel simply will not work. They have had at

least two instances where the ambulances were vandalized.

I bring this to the minister's attention. It is a serious issue. I

know that he would recognize this. It needs to be more than promises. We need

clear dates on when the ambulance station is going to be built, where it will be

built, and we need to be working towards the fall to make sure that there's not

another winter like the one we've just had for the Revelstoke paramedics.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm very appreciative of the member raising

this issue. I think it's entirely appropriate and useful for him to be raising

this on behalf of his constituents in Revelstoke. I should note that I'm

actually from Sicamous, although if I were from Salmon Arm, I would be proud to

be from Salmon Arm. I'm even slightly closer to Revelstoke than the member

suggested.

The Revelstoke station has been an issue for BCAS, and we are

working to resolve those issues. I don't disagree with the member at all in

terms of his analysis about the challenges around the physical structure of the

station that exists there. There had been some efforts to try to find an

accommodation with the fire department. Apparently, that was unsuccessful for a

variety of reasons.

B.C. Ambulance Service has been, because of the importance of this

station, attempting to finalize a property acquisition that would allow the

new-built construction of an appropriate facility sized for the needs of

Revelstoke. In terms of that need Revelstoke, for its size, is a relatively busy

station, as the member noted. The emergency call volume last year was 677 calls,

so close to two calls a day from 911.

Notwithstanding the problems we have in terms of the physical

structure and the location of the on call paramedics in a motel, nevertheless

Revelstoke has seen a 27-percent increase over the last couple of years in

response times — notwithstanding those difficulties.

[ Page 7820 ]

We don't discount those difficulties. In fact, for all of the

reasons that the member articulated, B.C. Ambulance Service will be making an

investment in an appropriate property in Revelstoke. We will be endeavouring to

move as quickly as we can towards construction after finalization of that

property acquisition. We hope to have a new, functioning ambulance station for

the city of Revelstoke and the area within the next year or two.

C. Wyse: My colleague asked me to convey to the minister

his appreciation for his response.

Minister, I'm going to now go back to you with the discussions

that we were having with regards to Alexis Creek and the statistics that you

presented for out in the Chilcotin. I'm assuming that the statistics you gave

deal with actual closures. That also does not include when those stations had

first-responder status, which leaves the station open but with a situation in

which there are not enough personnel in order to transfer the people in.

[1130]

We have had discussions on how that set of circumstances puts

additional pressure upon other services out there — namely, the police — at both

Anahim Lake and Alexis Creek, where the detachment, on more than one occasion,

has provided the driver so that the ambulance could then make the transportation

to the nearest necessary hospital, which is often Williams Lake.

The statistics that you mention — and you talked about

improvements — still have other aspects that come into play with service levels

and the effects that they have upon other protection services in that area.

Remember, on the incident of the 21st that we used to introduce

this situation for our discussion, that that was a policing situation where it

initiated a shooting incident. The station was shut down. The reports I have

from the RCMP deal with the transfer of a person from where the incident

occurred to Alexis Creek itself. Then the pickup takes place by the Ambulance

Service from Alexis Creek back into Williams Lake. Dealing with that component….

There also is another aspect that comes into play. On the 21st,

both Anahim Lake and Alexis Creek were out of service, so ground ambulance was

not available from Williams Lake to Bella Coola — the whole length of distance

of some 400-plus kilometres.

The minister of course will correct me here, if necessary.

Ambulance coverage by air decreases and disappears during evening hours, so the

statistics that have been provided by the minister, dealing exclusively with

closure of the actual stations from a full-time aspect of it, have some other

components that do come into play.

The third component that the minister has had drawn to his

attention is that when the backup system becomes air ambulance, first nations

communities have advised the minister, as well as myself as their MLA, that

their elders — on at least one occasion, if not others — have been transported

from an already-rural setting to even more distant areas. So the transportation

of those elders back to their communities has been further complicated. In

moving them further away, they also moved them out of areas where the elders'

language was also spoken, further complicating the treatment.

The complexity of dealing with the Chilcotin and all of its

problems is larger than simply dealing exclusively with the actual closure of

the system as his statistics mentioned.

I have a request of the minister. I am aware that on April 21 both

Anahim Lake and Alexis Creek were shut down. The question that I would have is:

how often has this situation occurred, in which both stations have been out of

service, in years '04, '05, '06? If that information is not readily available, I

would be quite happy to receive it sometime in the near future.

Hon. G. Abbott: We have here the information, which I noted

earlier, about how much time out of service, respectively, there was in Alexis

Creek and Anahim Lake. We don't have with us the kind of data that would allow

us to look at it and say on what occasions both stations were out. I'll ask

staff, if in fact that data can be prepared, to assemble it for the member. But

we certainly don't have that here.

In terms of the unfortunate situation that occurred in Alexis

Creek on April 14, 2007…. This was a difficult situation involving a gun battle

on reserve at the Anahim reserve of Alexis Creek. A young woman was shot during

the exchange of fire.

[1135]

We did have to bring a crew in from Williams Lake to deal with

that. It would have been, certainly, optimal to be able to have a crew readily

available in Alexis Creek to deal with that, but it was not. Of course we would

like that, but we….

First of all, I'm happy. I understand the young woman has survived

and survived well. I certainly want to extend our appreciation to the physician

who was, happily, on scene or near the scene and was able to assist in this

difficult situation.

That's the whole reason why we want to continue our aggressive

recruitment and retention for those difficult stations. We're undertaking the

initiatives for recruitment to build a better capacity and to try to ensure that

when we need emergency health services, they are there for those communities.

That having been said, it is important for all members of that

community not just to criticize when a challenge occurs but also, I hope, to

step up to the plate and offer suggestions or help us in those recruitment

drives and to try to ensure that — whether it's the aboriginal community or the

non-aboriginal community — we have representatives from both aboriginal and

non-aboriginal communities among our attendants.

I think in the case of the Queen Charlotte Islands, we're making

some progress in respect of, for the first time, being able to recruit and train

young aboriginal people into the B.C. Ambulance Service. From our perspective,

that's a great thing. I hope we can see some of

[ Page 7821 ]

that success continue in Anahim Lake and Alexis Creek. Everybody needs to

step up to the plate on this.

I also want to note that the member mentioned the RCMP and the

role that they sometimes play. I salute the RCMP for the work they do to support

the B.C. Ambulance Service, and obviously the B.C. Ambulance Service supports

the RCMP at times in return. To our knowledge, or to Fred's knowledge, there

have only been two incidents over the past six years which involve an RCMP

officer driving an ambulance in support.

Nevertheless, we don't see that as something we should be critical

of. In very small communities there are occasions when the emergency services

will support one another in difficult and unforeseen circumstances. That's the

whole theory behind first responders. We build those kinds of partnerships.

We want to extend that partnership to first nations. Whether in a

formal legal sense we have an obligation to provide ambulances to first nations

where fiduciary responsibilities for the first nations rests with the federal

government…. We respond. The B.C. Ambulance Service is comprised of human beings

who want to help other human beings. That's what we do, and we try to do it in

the most effective way possible. We try every day to improve the service to all

of the people we serve in rural and remote areas.

C. Wyse: For approximately two years, as I've tried to

pursue this issue in various different forms, in various different means…. Until

today, I've received denials. I've received provincial statistics. I've received

reports. Finally, today, I've received an admission that a problem does exist.

I would also like to be on record here that the conversation that

I've had with the RCMP…. There have been more…. There were four incidents in

Alexis Creek in the last year, and there was one, I believe, from Anahim Lake

either last year or the year before. Those incidents were reported to the

minister. I also reported that the RCMP are required to leave their vehicles

behind because, of course, their service is then being removed.

[1140]

Having put that on the record, Chair, I am going to move on now

into 100 Mile and into the Cariboo area. On April 27 there was an incident that

occurred when the ambulance service was overextended. The situation briefly is

that there was a fire in 108 Mile. There should have been an ambulance on

standby in case the ambulance was required. So 100 Mile was the nearest

ambulance station. Its ambulances were fully engaged. An ambulance was required

and called for.

Williams Lake, which would have been the next nearest station,

likewise had all of its ambulances engaged. So Clinton, the remote

classification, was then designated to send out the ambulance.

There was a tragic outcome that occurred in this particular

incident. Setting aside that outcome, the situation is that the ambulance

service availability across the Cariboo and the Chilcotin was overextended

again. The system is stretched to its limit. Therefore, when we deal with a

spike, if you like, the system is not able to respond.

There becomes a cascading effect that reverberates right

throughout the entire area — the Cariboo and the Chilcotin. I have described

other situations in this House that have reverberated from Williams Lake right

out through the Chilcotin.

When we take the significance of the ambulance being the

transportation system into the hospital and we see the problem that exists,

which the minister is acknowledging exists in this part of the area…. When we

get the patient into our hospitals in our area, the next aspect becomes their

transportation out of the area in the case of trauma.

We have confirmed cases that trauma patients, upon arriving at 100

Mile, have been refused access — Kamloops, Kelowna, Vancouver — leading to delay

in their treatment.

My question becomes…. With the average transfer time from the

Cariboo-Chilcotin stations to a hospital for the years '04, '05 and '06…. Once

more, if that information is not available, being conveyed to me at another time

would be quite acceptable.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm sure the member, in the interests of

time, is attempting to integrate a number of issues into one single question.

We're going to get some issues confused here if we do that.

Let me begin by concluding on the challenges of Alexis Creek and

Anahim Lake. The member suggests that it's some kind of revelation today that I

acknowledged that those stations are challenged. I have constantly acknowledged

that those stations are challenged for the full period that I've been Minister

of Health — no debate about it.

It is a challenge, and it will continue to be a challenge. It was

a challenge five years ago. It was a challenge ten years ago, and it was a

challenge 20 years ago.

[1145]

Part of the challenge is that when you have a station that has a

call, on average, once every two to three days, it is difficult to sustain the

long-term interest of paramedics in those areas. It's a challenge, but it's a

challenge that we're mindful of and that we're working on.

The member said something about the RCMP 40 times involved in

ambulance work. I'm not sure what he means by that. That is news to the B.C.

Ambulance leadership that we have here. Again, to our knowledge, in six years

there have been two occasions when RCMP officers specifically drove ambulances

to assist. It is not a common thing. I presume the member is taking some very

broad definition of RCMP involvement in a BCAS call to make that kind of

assertion, but it certainly is not resonating with the senior leadership at the

B.C. Ambulance Service.

We have a great relationship with the RCMP. We work together on a

constant basis, but I think the member's suggestion that somehow the RCMP have

had to undertake the work of the B.C. Ambulance Service on a consistent basis is

entirely incorrect. So I want that on the record before we leave it as well.

The member references the very unfortunate situation of April 27

at 108 Mile House in, I think, his con-

[ Page 7822 ]

stituency. I'm not certain about that. Yes, in Cariboo South. In that case,

first of all, I want to say that…. I know now that I think the member may have

shifted his ground on this somewhat. I saw a newspaper

article in which the

member is now saying that everyone worked appropriately and effectively in that

situation. That is at some odds with the kind of line that this member and the

member for Cariboo North were taking in question period in recent days.

In question period during those days, I said that this was a

difficult situation. It was a difficult situation because the two ambulance

units in 100 Mile House were both occupied with calls at the time the fire call

came in at 108 Mile House. The situation that evolved was such that there was no

immediate injury or illness involved around the fire. The cardiac event, which

occurred, sadly, during the fire, was something that evolved during that

incident.

The two ambulances in 100 Mile House were engaged in other calls

at that point in time. As a result, the patient, entirely appropriately, was

moved by a fire vehicle into the hospital at 100 Mile House and, sadly,

succumbed to the very serious nature of cardiac arrest. But if I understand the

member's comments in the newspaper

article correctly, he's now satisfied that

everyone did everything that they possibly could to deal with what was a tragic

set of circumstances — unquestionably, a tragic set of circumstances.

But this is unusual that we would have this event. On average, 100

Mile House receives about six calls a day. It would be an unusual circumstance

to have the ambulances occupied the way they were on that day, and I think the

member himself now acknowledges in the newspaper

article that, given the nature

of the medical situation, the best was done that could be done. It's an

unfortunate situation. We'll certainly learn from the situation. I hope the

member perhaps learns something from that situation and perhaps learns something

about forming and articulating conclusions before having all of the benefit of

the facts at hand. I know sometimes these things can be painful in respect of

that, but I hope that there's been some learning on that part as well.

[1150]

In terms of the other issue, the member references the situation,

again, with a cardiac patient requiring air ambulance transport to the lower

mainland for attention. I'll go through it in a subsequent answer here — I

presume we're going to continue on this track for a while around air ambulance —

but I'll give a short answer to the question right now.

Even though we have a significant number of air ambulances both

immediately available or available on an on call contractual basis, there are

times when we will have multiple demands on the air ambulance service. On those

occasions, sometimes the medical advisers at the B.C. Ambulance Service have to

make difficult decisions about where to place the priorities in terms of those

calls. I'm sure it's a remarkably difficult judgment to make, and the situations

are unusual, but they can occur.

We have a population of 4.2 million people, and we don't know with

precision what times and where and why they will require B.C. air ambulance

transport. Sometimes multiple demands on the service will occur at a single

time, and other times we will have hours where there will be no call on the

service. This is a challenge, but I think we're moving ahead on that.

That's a short answer to the question, and I know members want to

move to another area briefly here. Perhaps we'll be returning to ambulance in

the afternoon.

M. Sather: The member for Cariboo South will be glad to

continue with that discussion after the break. The time is short, as the

minister mentioned, hon. Chair, so I want to put my questions out in total. I'll

lump them together, and then the minister may want to respond now, or he may

want to respond after the break.

Carrying on, though, from yesterday, the questions are around the

emergency room extension at Ridge Meadows Hospital, which had gone from being

announced in 2004 at $8 million, subsequently to $14 million in March of 2006,

and then three months later to $20.6 million. I wanted to ask the minister, now

that he's had a chance to review the file, what discussions have been had with

the health authority over this escalating cost, and what assurances can he give

that this is going to be the final cost and that we're not going to see anything

further?

I wanted to make some comments and a question, if you will, on the

issue of construction costs. That inevitably comes up over a period of years. We

know that construction costs have risen. The health authority cited a 48-percent

hike in construction costs over the two-year period, but Mr. Keith Sashaw of the

Vancouver Regional Construction Association said: "We've been looking at

increased construction costs of 12 percent to 13 percent per year." That would

be 24 percent to 26 percent over two years, as opposed to the 48 percent that

the health authority is citing. That was information given by the director at

Ridge Meadows Hospital. I wanted the minister to comment on the differences in

those figures.

Also, the project was supposed to start in the spring of 2005 and

was delayed for one year. Could the minister, in his answers, address the

question of why it was delayed for one year?

Finally, the issue of cost overruns. Despite going up two and a

half times, the health authority is still saying that the project is on budget

and on time. This comes up a number of times with different projects that the

government undertakes. They say: "This is the project. This is going to be the

cost." Then later on they let out a tender, and then suddenly the escalating

costs are now on time and on budget.

I have to say that I think that accounting mechanism and the

communications to the public are disingenuous. I would like the minister to

comment, too, in his answer whether he agrees that this project is still on time

and on budget despite having gone up two and a half times in cost.

Those are my questions.

[1155]

[ Page 7823 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: The member asks a number of questions in

respect of this particular project. I know they routinely criticize the P3

initiatives of the government, yet at the same time they seem to be critical of

any other approach to construction, particularly when we see construction costs

escalate over time. They are particularly critical of that but seem to

underestimate the value of P3s in terms of containing the risk to the public

purse around those.

I guess this is either an instance where the opposition would like

to have it both ways, as they frequently do, or perhaps it's an instance of

where they simply don't want to do anything and therefore not incur any

construction cost in doing so.

To be clear, I have a report here from the BTY Group around

construction cost escalation over time. These are leaders in this area. I hope

this is satisfactory to the member. This is a direct quote from the document.

"Following relative stability in the 1990s, construction costs in the lower

mainland since 2000 have experienced a cumulative compounded increase of 65

percent across all projects. This broad escalation continues to force

contractors, clients and consultants to adjust expectations in budgets." Then

there's a whole bunch of information in respect of how those costs have

escalated.

In reference to the Ridge Meadows Hospital emergency and

ambulatory care project, I should note there are three basic factors in terms of

the change in the dollar amount associated with this project. First of all —

this is very important, and I hope the member will make a note of it — there has

been an increase in project scope. There has been a change in the clinical

design scope.

The Chair: Minister, noting the time.

Hon. G. Abbott: Noting the time, then, I will have to

return, and the member will have to return to the resumption of estimates later

today.

With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TOURISM, SPORT AND THE ARTS

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); A. Horning in the

chair.

The committee met at 10:08 a.m.

On Vote 41: ministry operations, $126,298,000 (continued).

N. Macdonald: It's a pleasure to be here again and to ask

questions. Today we will be primarily asking questions about PavCo, trying to

understand what has happened there. We're also going to be asking questions of

course about the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project. I'm going to use

the acronym that I heard from the ministry staff, which is VCCEP. That's the

acronym that I think we're both familiar with.

There were some interesting things that I learned yesterday. My

background of course is as a teacher. I think my colleague here comes with a

background as a bus driver — and a football fan, of course. We're going to try

to get to the bottom and understand, I think, from the context of fairly normal

citizens, about sums of money that seem huge and to understand how a project

that was presented to the public as something that was very straightforward….

As I look at some of the documentations that were put together to

begin the Vancouver Convention Centre expansion, you basically see it presented

as something that's…. They didn't use the term "no-brainer", but they basically

said that it was very much like that. It was something that simply could not

fail to be a project that was brought in on time and on budget, and yet that

hasn't happened.

It is a project that in fact has gone — it looks like it may be —

close to $400 million over budget. That's despite the assurances of a series of

ministers. I recognize that the present minister has been much more careful.

[1010]

While that gives us an opportunity to make fun of the "in range"

things that he has said, I think it's a much more prudent response. He's been

much more careful than his predecessors in laying out what the final costs are

going to be.

That's what we want to finish with at the end of the day — to have

a greater understanding as representatives of the public as to how this project

could have gone so wrong. We're going to begin that by asking for something that

I thought I had an indication that I would receive: the dates, the payment

schedule of the

[ Page 7824 ]

20-odd conventions that the minister has identified as needing the expansion.

If you have that documentation, I would appreciate receiving it — and now, if we

can.

Hon. S. Hagen: I appreciate your comments this morning. We

have all been concerned, of course, about the escalating construction costs of

this project. At the end of the day, I think what's important is that the

citizens of British Columbia end up with a project that they can be very proud

of and that will host many, many conventions into the future.

I would just like to read into the record some of the conventions

that have been booked. These are significant conventions that could not have

been hosted in the existing trade and convention centre.

I would also like to add to the list of staff that I introduced

yesterday the name of Barbara Maple, who is the CEO of the existing trade and

convention centre and who is here with us today. Welcome to Barbara.

The first convention that I want to talk about is the

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the IBEW, based in Washington,

D.C. They are bringing their 38th convention to the Vancouver Convention and

Exhibition Centre in September of 2011. This is the IBEW's first convention in

Vancouver, and its first in Canada since 1986.

This is a quote from the international secretary-treasurer of the

IBEW, Jon F. Walters. He said: "We're very excited about coming to Vancouver in

2011 and holding our convention in a new building with such incredible features,

including the inspiring views of the mountains and ocean."

"The IBEW convention is significant for VCCEP and Vancouver,

particularly because our expansion makes it possible for us to complete" — which

is a quote of Barbara Maple.

"The event, running from September 7 to 25, 2011, including

setup, will bring delegates, spouses, guests and staff together for an

exposition gala event and welcome reception. In total about 7,500 attendees are

expected, with 17,000 room nights. The convention represents 29,500 non–resident

delegate days and a projected economic impact to the province of over $42

million Canadian."

I won't read you my quote. That would be somewhat

self-serving. I think this is interesting:

"Founded in 1891,

the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers represents 725,000 members,

including 60,000 in Canada, who work in a wide variety of fields including

utilities, construction, telecommunications, broadcasting, manufacturing,

railroads and government. In addition to its 1986 convention in Toronto, the

IBEW has held conventions in Canada in 1923 and 1962, both in Montreal."

Okay. That's very good to know. We talked yesterday about

27 conventions coming because of the new facility. This is actually in addition

to that. This will be the 28th.

[1015]

Another convention that will be coming is the American Association

for Justice, the AAJ. They've signed a contract to bring their annual convention

to the new convention centre in July of 2010. This association was formerly

called the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. It's also based in

Washington, D.C., and is the world's largest trial bar association.

Here's a quote from the director of meetings and conventions to

the AAJ:

"Our first trip to Vancouver in 1999, when we first started

having discussions with the trade and convention centre, really solidified our

desire to host our convention here. We have wanted to come to Vancouver for a

long time, and we are happy to have finalized our contract."

This is a quote from Barbara Maple:

"Given

the calibre of the association and the longer-than-usual sales cycle, this is a

significant win for the new trade and convention centre and its industry

partners. With more than 9,000 room nights, this is also good news for our local

hotels and other industry partners, not only because it is on the heels of what

we know will be a successful Olympic and Paralympic event, but also because it

is during our high season.

"Booked from July 10 to July 14 of 2010, the

five-day event represents more than 15,000 non–resident delegate days. With a

projected economic impact to the province of over $18 million Canadian, 2010

will mark the convention's first time in Vancouver."

The director of meetings and conventions also says:

"The

convention is focused on education, but there are many events taking place over

the five days, including spouse and guest functions, award recognitions, student

programs, expositions and a closing reception dinner and dance. With a beautiful

city like Vancouver, I am confident that this will be one of our most popular

and well-attended events to date."

This association has 56,000 members. The AAJ promotes

justice and fairness for injured persons, safeguards victims' rights and

strengthens the civil justice system through education and disclosure of

information critical to public health and safety.

Here's an interesting piece of information. This is about a green

event that wins a gold award. This is in Vancouver in April of this year, 2007.

"The third session of the World Urban Forum" — referred to

as WUF3 — "has won gold for the IMEX 2007 Green Meetings Award in Frankfurt,

Germany at IMEX 2007 — one of the meetings and conventions industry's largest

worldwide exhibitions. Organized by the Globe Foundation of Canada, WUF3 was

held at the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre in June 2006 and was a

Again, Shawna McKinley, who's the executive director,

explaining why the six-day, 10,000-participant conference was chosen above other

entrants:

"WUF3 had its own holistic plan which engaged all

participants and exceeded the baseline for sustainable practice. The application

was so strong that it certainly lived up to — and arguably now has set — a new

gold standard for environmentally responsible meetings."

I learned, when I was in Germany at the large conference

earlier this year, that the tourists from Germany, for instance, were very

interested and actually knew pretty well everything about the new trade and

convention centre, including its green roof, which is a tremendous thing from an

environmental point of view.

[ Page 7825 ]

Now, Dr. John Wiebe, who is the president and CEO for the Globe

Foundation of Canada, says: "Our team at Globe worked hard to create a greening

program that successfully integrated event operations with marketing and

communications."

[1020]

He continued:

"While actively engaging suppliers

and delegates to reduce the environmental impact of daily activities, we set out

to make the conference carbon-neutral and focused on waste minimization,

pollution reduction and energy conservation.

"To win this, each application was reviewed against

the conference venue and the conference itself, including catering and trade

show practices. According to the judging panel, as WUF3's chosen venue, the

trade and convention centre offered an exemplary set of green features including

seawater cooling systems and a detailed energy efficiency program. Other

benefits such as low-flow toilets, a recycling program for organic waste, use of

reusable glassware and utensils, and the use of green-certified housekeeping and

cleaning products all met with the organizers' stringent requirements."

I won't read my quote into the record, but these are all

examples of the success of both the existing trade and convention centre and the

new trade and convention centre.

In talking about the existing trade and convention centre, what

we're talking about is the addition to that, which is a big plus and will enable

us to host conventions like the ones I've talked about. Since opening in 1987,

the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre has been B.C.'s flagship

convention facilities, hosting 350 events and 600,000 delegate days each year,

generating more than $240 million in annual economic benefits.

When the major new expansion completes, VCCEP will offer a

combined total of nearly 500,000 square feet of function space and will serve as

the international media and broadcast centre, as the members know, for the

Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games in 2010. So the addition we're talking about

will double the economic benefits for British Columbia and will certainly be a

big plus in attracting conferences like the examples I gave.

As I mentioned yesterday, there are groups that have signed up,

which don't want to be discussed in public at this point. There are reasons they

have for that, I'm sure. That is a confidentiality that the Vancouver Convention

and Exhibition Centre respects.

N. Macdonald: We have limited time, as the minister knows.

I asked for a pretty straightforward piece of information. I wanted the 27 — now

28, I guess — conventions the minister identified as needing the expansion. I

need that in print. I wonder if that could be passed to us, and we'll make

copies of it.

I assume what is there and what the minister read from was a list.

If there are reasons why the names of the various conventions can't be given, I

imagine that has been vetted from there. Nevertheless, the information is

available to us, and I assume that's coming to us.

Just to get into a set of questions on B.C. Place, to try to wrap

that up by the morning. What is the going rent for B.C. Place? Then I'll ask if

you could send across the document that we requested, and we'll have a look at

that.

[1025]

Hon. S. Hagen: I have two answers here, and I can't

remember which question you asked first.

The first answer I'll give you is with regard to the rates charged

for B.C. Place. They have a rate card, which is a public document. The rates

vary because it depends on whether it's a community event, a concert or a trade

show. I'm happy to provide you with a copy of that card.

The second question was with regard to the 27 — now 29 —

conferences that have been booked, because we're able to, for the new trade and

convention centre. I'll call it the trade and convention centre.

We're compiling a list of the ones that the clients are allowing

us to release. Of course, this is an ongoing process. I mean, as PavCo books

events and as they get permission to, then they send out a press release saying:

"We've booked conference X."

But to date in total…. That 27 has now grown to 29, but the 27

number of non–resident delegate days is 586,000. The significance is that those

are the most meaningful to the province from an economic development point of

view. Of course, that is part of the 50 conventions that have been booked, which

have a total economic benefit to the province of over $850 million.

[1030]

I think I did mention to you an example. I'll use the American

Association for Justice. The four-day event translates to 15,000 non–resident

delegate days with an economic impact to the province of $18.1 million Canadian.

That is in addition to the 586,000 non–resident delegate days.

N. Macdonald: Those two pieces of information, then…. My

assumption is that the card, which is a public document, for B.C. Place…. You've

indicated that you'll send that to my office, so I would expect that in the next

few days. You can correct me if I've misinterpreted that, but that's my

assumption with that one.

The second one. The interest we have in the conventions is not

necessarily the specifics of who is coming and what sort of attributes they're

looking to, but more to understand exactly over what period of time we're

talking about — to just get an understanding. It would be one thing if you're

talking about — and I assume you're talking about — 29 separate conventions.

It's also possible, as far as I know right now, that it would be one convention

that would come for three years — one after another after another — and that

that would be counted as three.

Those are the sorts of things I want to understand. If it's over a

ten-year period, that's different in terms of understanding the importance of

the expansion rather than if this was happening in a two-year period. That's the

sort of information.

The other parts that you provided, of course, are valuable too.

But not so much…. The information, I

[ Page 7826 ]

will accept, is perhaps something that the people that are coming wouldn't be

interested in. But certainly we want to get a sense of 29 over how big of a

period and how long they are staying and the numbers. These were valuable. The

things that you gave on that one convention would be valuable to know for all of

them, like I say, rather than the specifics of who is actually coming.

Getting on to B.C. Place, it would also be helpful to have copies

of what would be normal rental agreements with full details about normal

expectations in terms of what is expected of B.C. Place and what somebody

renting the facility would expect. If you could send copies of those as well….

If you need to ask more specifically what I'm after here…. I just want to get a

sense of what is usually in the contract and what expectations from both sides

would usually be. That would be another document that it would be helpful to

have sent to the office.

The question that follows that I would ask of the minister is: how

much in total is being given to VANOC — in terms of how much time at B.C. Place

is being given to VANOC? Just more details on that agreement, please.

Hon. S. Hagen: We'll be pleased to provide you with what

we're calling draft contracts for B.C. Place — the contracts that we ask people

to sign which lay out what is expected from both parties.

The amount of time that's being provided to VANOC by B.C. Place is

from November 2, 2009, to March 19, 2010.

N. Macdonald: The decision to provide the facility at no

fee to VANOC — just a question of: who made that decision?

[1035]

As well, who negotiated on the VANOC side? Who were the

participants in the meeting for the VANOC side? When did that meeting take

place? If there was a series of meetings, which I expect there was, what were

the dates of the series of meetings and who was negotiating as representatives

of the PavCo side? Here I'm assuming that those would be the two parties and the

only two parties. But if there were others, I'd be interested in knowing that.

Hon. S. Hagen: I actually appreciate the questions, because

this enables me to get information as well. The negotiations between the general

manager of PavCo and senior management at VANOC took place between September and

December of 2002.

I also want to point this out, because I think it's important.

This has actually been in the papers, so I'm sure you've read it. There is a

benefit coming to PavCo of about $8 million in food and beverage revenues. VANOC

is paying for the staffing for that period of time that I gave you, from

November to March, and they're also providing upgrade dollars at $3.8 million.

N. Macdonald: Just for my benefit, when you talk about

senior management and about different positions, could you put names to those so

that I would know who the various individuals are? The $3.8 million in terms of

upgrades — I'd be interested to know what that was for. Could you give me

information on what specifically the upgrades are?

[1040]

Hon. S. Hagen: The negotiations back in 2002 took place….

From PavCo's side, it was Howard Crosley who is the general manager, and from

the VANOC side, Terry Wright.

The question about what the $3.8 million is going to be spent on….

There are a number of items — cleaning the inner lining, which we talked a bit

about yesterday; disability access, disabled access; lighting; and updating

fixtures.

H. Bains: Thank you to the minister for some of the

questions that I had on my mind, and some of the answers that you gave to my

colleague here.

Just staying where we are at right now — the negotiations between

PavCo and VANOC. We've got some names of the hired staff, I would call it, so I

just want to confirm…. The meeting and the negotiations took place in 2002. Were

they concluded in 2002?

Hon. S. Hagen: The agreement was signed December 19, 2002.

That would have been the completion of the negotiation.

H. Bains: You gave us a couple of names. There must be a

team of negotiators from both sides. Who were the other negotiators or the

people who were supporting these two gentlemen that you gave the names for?

Hon. S. Hagen: My staff is going to check into the records.

They don't have the names at the tips of their tongues, but we're happy to

provide the information.

H. Bains: While you're at it, I would ask the staff if the

minutes of those meetings — you know, I'm talking about the negotiation sessions

that took place — would be made available.

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, they will be made available, subject to

FOI.

H. Bains: I just want to clarify that the minutes of those

negotiation meetings…. Perhaps I'll ask you directly. Can you forward those

minutes to either my office or my colleague's office? How long of a time frame

are you looking at?

[1045]

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that it might take a while to find

these records, because they are so old, but I understand that under FOI we have

30 business days to locate, provide and FOI the information. It will be done

within the time limits of the FOI rules.

H. Bains: I guess there must be some guidelines. These

folks on behalf of PavCo must have been ap-

[ Page 7827 ]

proached by VANOC because they needed a facility for that period of time. So

are there any guidelines for the management to follow when it comes to renting

that facility to whoever wanted to come in and use that facility for a period of

time because a number of conventions and shows are being held there?

Are there some certain guidelines that they follow when they sit

down to negotiate those deals?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I'm sure the member knows, these

negotiations took place before the bid for the Olympics was put in. So this was

part of the Olympic bid. I've already agreed to share the rate card for B.C.

Place with the member.

On something like the Olympic Games, the IOC expects that publicly

owned facilities would be made available to host the games. I don't think that's

earth-shattering news. That's just part of what British Columbia has put on the

table in order to get the games to British Columbia and Canada.

H. Bains: I appreciate the answer. If that's what the

expectation is of the IOC, that's what the expectation is.

My question was…. Because it was a part of the IOC's expectation,

the management must have been approached by someone from the government side, or

from somebody, that…. "Hey, there is an arrangement being made. This is the

expectation from IOC, and as such, we want you to tell us if we could use your

facility. This is what we expect out of you."

Who made that contact from the government side, and who was

approached at PavCo — was it the board, or was it the manager?

[1050]

Hon. S. Hagen: I am told that the approach to PavCo was

made by the Vancouver Olympic organizing committee, which would be the

forerunner to VANOC. That was the committee that was putting the bid together.

They apparently, I'm told, went to all of the venues — at least that were in

place at that time — that they would need to host the Olympics to do the

negotiations.

H. Bains: As we know, these are publicly owned facilities. The

board running these facilities have an obligation, on behalf of the taxpayers,

to get the best value for that asset, regardless of the use. In this particular

case they were asked to make an exemption, I believe — if that's the right

answer.

If that is the case, can the minister…? When I'm talking about the

exemption, I'm talking about their general use for rental purposes, their normal

method of renting that facility to generate funds on behalf of the taxpayers.

This arrangement was different, or it was an exemption to the rules of the

arrangement that is normally used.

Hon. S. Hagen: The negotiations that took place at that

period of time, from September to December of 2002, were based on B.C. Place not

losing out on business because of making the facility available for the

Olympics. What they did was they were able to reschedule the shows. The auto

show, for instance, is going to come in after the Olympic Games instead of in

January and February, when it's usually held. They did get the advantage of

keeping the $8 million from food and beverage sales. VANOC is paying for the

staffing and, of course, contributing $3.8 million to the upgrade.

[1055]

Just so the member understands, what hosting the Olympics means as

a benefit to British Columbia, because it's a very important part of the

discussion…. This is a backgrounder on the economic impact of hosting the 2010

Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games. You're going to enjoy this.

H. Bains: I'm really looking forward to this.

Hon. S. Hagen: Okay, well, listen carefully, and I'll send

you a copy of Hansard afterwards.

Vancouver and Whistler in particular, and British Columbia in

general, will have their profiles raised — our profiles raised — throughout the

world, strengthening tourism.

Before the Calgary Winter Olympics in 1988, Alberta had an average

annual growth of annual international visitors of 0.25 percent. This is before

the Olympics. They had an average annual growth rate in international visitors

of one-quarter of 1 percent, and that was from 1972 to 1985.

In pre-Olympic years the number of visitors grew by 5 percent in

1985 and 8 percent in 1986. In the Olympic year, growth surged to 12 percent and

then retained all of its post-Olympics gains with an average annual growth of

3.25 percent for the first five post-Olympic years. That compares to an average

annual loss of 2.5 percent for the rest of Canada, excluding British Columbia.

Mega-events — and that's what the Olympics are — have a profound

impact on the international convention business in host cities. Sydney, for

instance, increased the number of international convention bids it won by 34

percent after it was chosen in 1993 to host the 2000 games.

Barcelona achieved a 21-percent annual compound growth in

international delegates in the six years following the 1992 games and a

29-percent increase in the year of the games.

What we're talking about here, hon. Chair, is a terrific

opportunity for British Columbia. I know that deep down you get that. I'm hoping

to hear from you today that you support bringing the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic

Games to British Columbia — I'm just hoping.

That will be what I would like to come out of today with. If I

could just hear the NDP members say, "Yes, we are in support," regardless of

what your leader has said…. Because this won't be the first time you disagree

with your leader, I'm sure.

Interjections.

Hon. S. Hagen: Did your leader say it?

[ Page 7828 ]

Interjection.

Hon. S. Hagen: Okay, well that's good. You're going to have

to talk to your leader, though, because I've noticed over the last couple of

days that if you disagree with your leader, there is sort of a penalty to pay. I

don't want to see you in the penalty box at all. I want you to be supportive of

the 2010 Olympics, to stand up and say this is great for British Columbia.

H. Bains: The minister gave a lot of political answers to a

question that wasn't even asked, and almost put the Chair to sleep.

My question wasn't the benefits of the Olympics. The question

wasn't the additional tourism that we are going to attract. We know all those

answers. If I wanted to know that, I would ask you those questions. Those

questions weren't being asked.

If you want to talk about Olympics and you want to give me some

answers about Olympics, then maybe we can get into that as well, if that's where

the minister wants to go. But I think right now….

[1100]

Interjection.

H. Bains: Exactly. The minister is saying that he's not

responsible for the Olympics. Therefore, I would ask the minister if he could

stick to the questions that he's responsible for and at least get the answers to

the questions that are being asked under his portfolio, rather than covering the

other ministers' portfolios.

The question was very simple. An arrangement was made. Somebody

had an expectation that the publicly owned facilities would be provided free of

use. That's the statement. Then the process got in place. Someone started that

process. Approaches were made on behalf of the organizing committee, on behalf

of the government.

I'm just trying to understand how this whole agreement and process

unfolded. When the PavCo management was approached…. I'm sure there are certain

guidelines. They knew that those guidelines will not be followed because they

are asked to step aside from those guidelines. Those are the general guidelines

for rental agreements that are being used for any client that comes in. So the

management team must have gone to the board for approval. Did they?

Hon. S. Hagen: The negotiations that took place between

September and December of 2002 were just like other negotiations that take place

for people who want to use and rent B.C. Place Stadium. The management look at

the total revenue that they get from hosting an event. That's rent, food and

beverage, staffing and all those things. As a result of those negotiations, over

those four months an agreement was reached where B.C. Place gets to keep the $8

million food and beverage revenues. VANOC games are paying for the staffing.

They're providing $3.8 million for upgrades for the facility. When the agreement

was reached, it was approved by the chair of the board.

[B. Lekstrom in the chair.]

H. Bains: The answer from the minister is that it was

approved by the chair of the board. So the entire board did not participate in

approving?

Hon. S. Hagen: It was signed by the chair of the board, but

she had the approval of the entire board.

[1105]

H. Bains: That's good. I finally got an answer.

Then I guess the board before they approved that arrangement…. It

is a different arrangement than the normal negotiations, the normal rental

agreements, unless the minister could tell me that it is exactly the same type

of negotiations, exactly the same type of arrangement for similar uses.

I didn't hear that, because the first answer was that they were

expected to give a publicly owned facility free of charge. If that's the case,

that's not how you do normal negotiations. That's not how you rent this facility

for normal use for any other renter. So if that was different than what goes on

today, for example, for anyone who wants to come in for a car show or any other

sports arrangement…. If that was different than these current negotiations and

the current arrangements, did the board seek approval of the minister?

Hon. S. Hagen: To put this in the context…. I'm sure the

member doesn't know this, but fiscal year 2009-2010, which is the period of time

that the Olympics fall into, will be a record revenue year for B.C. Place. They

are forecasting $20½ million in revenues coming into B.C. Place.

In this fiscal year that we're in, 2007-2008, the forecast is $11

million. So you can see the boost that's coming to B.C. Place because of the

2010 Olympics.

H. Bains: Again, I didn't get the answer to the question

that I asked. I think I will be asking those questions fairly quickly. My

question was: did the board go to the minister responsible at that particular

time and have the minister's approval?

[1110]

Hon. S. Hagen: I apologize for not answering that question.

I get so excited about what this means to British Columbia and how the people of

British Columbia will benefit from hosting the 2010 Olympics.

G. Gentner: It all started from Harcourt. Let's not forget

it.

Hon. S. Hagen: You know, the member opposite raises an

interesting point. The member opposite said that it started with Harcourt. I

would refer to him as the Premier at the time — started with Premier Harcourt.

One of the benefits of being older is that you can reflect on history a bit, and

I actually remember in….

H. Bains: How about an answer, please.

[ Page 7829 ]

Hon. S. Hagen: I'll get to the answer, but I'm only

addressing your colleague — okay? — because….

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, the debate will be through the Chair.

Hon. S. Hagen: Through the Chair — absolutely, hon. Chair,

without question. And this is not a debate. This is a statement in answering a

comment that was made by one of the members opposite.

As I mentioned, one of the benefits of being older — more mature,

I guess — is that I actually remember the lead-up to Expo 86.

H. Bains: You learned how not to answer.

Hon. S. Hagen: Oh no, I always answer questions. That's my

reputation — being steadfast and explicit and punctilious.

I do remember Premier Harcourt's statements leading up to Expo 86.

The then Premier was mayor, I think, of Vancouver. He was either mayor of

Vancouver or on city council in Vancouver. I distinctly remember, because it was

widely reported, that he was opposed to Expo 86.

His comment was: "What happens if we throw a party and nobody

comes?" That was the statement. As everyone in British Columbia knows, Expo 86

was an incredible success for all of B.C., and 22 million people came to Expo 86

in 1986.

It happened to be the first year that I ran for the Social Credit

Party and got elected. Expo 86 was really a big part of my life. Giving credit

to Mr. Harcourt, who I have a lot of time for, I think he learned from that

experience. He learned that when you do something like Expo or like the Olympic

and Paralympic Games, it's a huge benefit to the people of the province.

Expo was a huge benefit. In the years after that, I can remember

how the rest of the province benefited from people coming back because they were

there for Expo. So I'm really glad the member opposite raised Mr. Harcourt,

because I think that's an example of how members opposite can learn.

As I said, my desire is that by the end of today we will have

broad-based support from the New Democratic Party for the 2010 Olympic and

Paralympic Games.

H. Bains: I think it's unfortunate. The taxpayers watching

this debate right now are looking for some serious answers to the serious

questions about cost overruns — about how their tax dollars are being spent, how

their tax dollars are being basically given away. But the minister, rather than

answering those questions, which they deserve….

It's their money. It's not the minister's money. It's not this

government's money. It's their tax dollars. Rather than answering the questions

about how their tax dollars are managed, the minister is going everywhere except

to the questions that are actually relevant to this debate today.

Anyway, I will not get distracted again, but I think the question

is: did the board go to the minister at that particular time and have that

approval by the minister?

[1115]

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm happy to answer that question. I wasn't

the minister at the time, as the member knows. The minister certainly approved

of the decision that the board made with regard to B.C. Place being one of the

venues — proposed to be used, because we didn't have the games yet. It was

included in the bid by the Vancouver Olympics organizing committee as one of the

venues to be used.

H. Bains: The question I would ask is coming out of the

answer by the minister. That fiscal year 2009 — the minister says 2009-2010 —

the revenue would be forecast at about $20 million-plus. That is for roughly a

four-month period that it is being used for the Olympics. Out of those four

months, the revenue is about $8 million from the concessions. Therefore, the

remaining $12 million is coming on the four months on both sides of that

particular four-month period.

So my question would be: how many other agreements do you have

going forward that you rent the facility just for the concession revenue?

Hon. S. Hagen: Thanks to the member for the question,

because it gives me an opportunity to put on the record what a benefit having

the Olympics in B.C. Place is going to be. This is the first time ever that $8

million of revenue will be forthcoming from food and beverage sales. That's

almost a normal year's revenue for B.C. Place.

VANOC is paying for the staffing, and on top of that, they're

providing $3.8 million for upgrades which will benefit B.C. Place into the

future.

Now, there are basically three categories when the management at

PavCo negotiate to get an event into the building. There are trade shows, there

are community events, and there are sporting events. I have already agreed to

provide your colleague with what they call the card, which outlines the rates —

not just rental rates but the food and beverage sharing, staffing and that sort

of thing.

H. Bains: The $20 million for that fiscal year — is that

net revenue, or is that gross?

Hon. S. Hagen: That's gross revenue.

H. Bains: What would be the net revenue based on that

gross?

[1120]

Hon. S. Hagen: If the member would like to make a note to

go to page 23 of the PavCo service plan, he will see the projections on revenues

and expenses for the fiscal years from 2005 to 2010. He will see that the best

fiscal performance, certainly from 2006 to 2010, will be in 2010.

[ Page 7830 ]

H. Bains: Again, I didn't get the answer. I think the

question was: what is the net revenue for that fiscal year? You gave me the

gross of $20 million. While you're at it, perhaps you could also give me what

net revenue is coming during that four-month period when you're getting $8

million from beverages and other concessions. Can you break that down?

[1125]

Hon. S. Hagen: I think by net revenue you mean net profit.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Hagen: Right. We haven't broken it down to the

four-month period, but I can tell you that the net income forecast for this

fiscal year that we're presently in is, in rounded numbers — a minus number,

which the government contributes to PavCo — $5.8 million. The net income in

brackets for '09-10 is $4.66 million.

H. Bains: Can I ask one last question of the minister? If

they don't have the information today, I would appreciate it if the minister

could forward that information to us in the next few days.

You have the resources to take a look at what your expenses are

going to be in that year. Obviously, you know your revenue. What would be the

total profit for that year? I think you gave me that as $4 million or some

number.

If you could break them down into those four-month periods — the

four months immediately prior to the Olympics and the four months immediately

after the Olympics — what would be the net profit for each of those four months?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, I'm pleased to do that.

G. Gentner: Very quickly, I want to just wrap up with some of

the questions relative to VANOC. If I have it correctly, I've heard some figures

of about $3 million of capital that is going to be spent on lights, etc. Is that

money coming out of the ceremonies budget for VANOC of $6.27 million?

Hon. S. Hagen: It's actually $3.8 million, which will add

some money spent on lighting and some other facilities for the building. That

will be coming out of the VANOC budget. That's a question that you should put to

the Minister Responsible for the Olympics.

G. Gentner: I hear the total upgrade is over and above $5

million. Where is the rest of the $2 million coming from?

Hon. S. Hagen: The amount of the anticipated expenditure is

$3.8 million. At this point in time PavCo has no additional funds to spend, so I

don't know where the $5 million number came from.

G. Gentner: For some time there have been needed speaker

improvements — audio systems, etc. Is this fund going to provide those necessary

improvements?

Hon. S. Hagen: The $3.8 million is going to be spent on

cleaning the inner lining, on disabled access to B.C. Place, on improved

lighting and on updating fixtures. PavCo, in their budget, has a $1.1 million

regular maintenance number, and they spend that money on regular maintenance of

the facility.

[1130]

G. Gentner: The world is coming to British Columbia to see

the Olympics. It's going to be the biggest show on earth. There will be a lot of

money spent on audio equipment, etc.

Who is going to be paying for the audio improvements at B.C.

Place?

Hon. S. Hagen: The rent is for the bare stadium. If the

Olympic committee wants to improve anything else in the stadium, that will be up

to them. It will be their responsibility and their cost.

H. Bains: Can the minister provide us with a copy of the

agreement between PavCo and VANOC?

Hon. S. Hagen: As in everything in the wonderful world that

we live in, it will be provided to you subject to FOI.

G. Gentner: I want to briefly return to the notion of the

deflated roof at B.C. Place — the controlled deflated roof. The manager of B.C.

Place receives certain bonuses for performance. Could the minister tell the

House: what was the bonus paid for '06 to March 31, '07, to Mr. Crosley?

Hon. S. Hagen: I don't have the number for this fiscal

year. It will be published when the financial statements are published. But the

general manager last year received a base salary of $126,000 and in the last

fiscal year received a bonus of $30,000.

G. Gentner: I know what it was last year. I was asking what

it was for '06 to March 31, '07. I'm not going to pursue that line of

questioning any further. I'll have to wait for all the reports. I just thought

we could do a comparison between what was paid in bonuses before the collapse of

the roof and what warranted the bonuses after the faux pas, so to speak —

mismanagement by B.C. Place.

I want to ask: before the collapse of the roof and the debacle at

B.C. Place, when did management ascertain that there were serious leaks in the

roof?

[1135]

Hon. S. Hagen: I just want to correct the member's

statement. He calls it a collapse of the roof; everyone knows that it was a

controlled deflation of the roof. As the preliminary engineer's report states….

The preliminary report indicates that it was due it a combination of weakened

fabric, human error and weather conditions. The final report is being prepared

by the engineers and will come out in due course.

I am told by senior management people that there were no leaks in

the roof discovered before the events

[ Page 7831 ]

happened that caused the controlled deflation, and I want to bring the member

to task a bit. You know, he calls this a debacle. It wasn't a debacle. Staff

handled the situation extremely well. I mean, did anybody want to see the roof

come down? Of course not. But, you know we had heavy winds, and we had the issue

of adding more pressure and not adding more pressure.

But you know what? At the end of the day no one was injured. B.C.

Place did not lose any business. I think the senior staff and ground staff at

B.C. Place have learned from this. The roof is being inspected virtually daily

by staff. It's being inspected by professionals annually. We pay attention to

the reports that come in from the professionals, and we pay attention to

anything that's raised by staff on the ground.

At the end of the day we have a stadium that is going to host the

opening and closing events and other events throughout those months leading up

to and after the Olympics. It will continue to…. As I said earlier today, the

auto show which normally takes place in January or February is going to take

place after the Olympics, so they've been accommodated.

I don't think that the member is being fair to call this a

debacle. I think he is taking a lot away from the staff at B.C. Place, who

actually dealt with this in a very professional manner.

G. Gentner: I concur with the good work of the staff, and

we were very lucky and fortunate there were no major injuries or fatalities. I

do take it back. It wasn't a debacle. It was complete negligence by that

corporation and this government.

Reports from B.C. Lions have reported that garbage cans were

needed in the seats to catch the water — this was in October and November — and

they would have to be emptied regularly or the water would flow down into level

4 concourse and ramps. Is that not true?

Hon. S. Hagen: I want to point out to the member opposite

that he is not the only football fan in this room. I'm also a football fan. I

talk to Bobby Ackles regularly about a variety of things. Bobby Ackles, who's

the president and CEO, has never raised that issue with me.

[1140]

G. Gentner: Regarding the delay in the report, the report

was supposed to come forth in April. My understanding is that Mr. Hamilton was

to report back by April. Is there a reason why this report, which is supposed to

go the occupational health and safety committee, has been delayed for so long?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I reminded the member yesterday, he's not

an engineer; I'm not an engineer. We depend on professionals for these reports,

and that report will be forthcoming when it's ready.

G. Gentner: Since the roof was a controlled deflation and

had to have major repairs, can the minister explain to us if there has been a

cost-benefit analysis for the costs of a total new roof?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told by senior staff that that has not

been done. As the reports continually point out, the roof is in good condition

and, with the repairs that go on annually, will be here for the foreseeable

future.

G. Gentner: What is the future? I mean, we're not seeing

any major due diligence. The neglect continues. What is the future for B.C.

Place? You're not doing a cost-benefit analysis of total repair when it has a

life expectancy of 25 years. It's pretty much over, since it was built in 1984,

I believe. We're up. You're not looking at repairing the whole roof. What is the

future of B.C. Place? How many discussions has B.C. Place or PavCo had with

potential buyers of B.C. Place?

Hon. S. Hagen: The member knows, I'm sure, because I've

said it publicly many times, that bookings are continuing on in B.C. Place to

2012. We are examining and we continually examine all of the future uses of B.C.

Place — whether it should be kept in place or should be replaced or should have

a new facility. You will get as many opinions on that as there are people in

British Columbia, I'm sure.

G. Gentner: Has the minister received any professional

opinions within his staff of what he is going to do with the stadium within five

years?

Hon. S. Hagen: You know, we deal continually with the

question of assets in PavCo, whether it's Bridge Studios or B.C. Place or the

trade and convention centre, and what improvements need to be made. With regard

to B.C. Place, these are discussions that are underway right now. We have a new

chair of the board of PavCo, and he is taking a look at the options. The

options, basically, boil down to three options.

[1145]

I think we should treat this building with respect. It is an icon.

I also remember when it was built and how proud we were when it rose out of the

decrepit railyards that were there. It really added to the value of that

particular part of Vancouver, as did Expo 86 and the development of the lands

where Expo was located. I don't think anybody would be negative about what

happened after Expo 86 with regard to those lands. I'm very proud of that.

Here are, basically, the three options for the future:

(1) To renew. To develop a comprehensive plan for the facility and

surrounding lands to maximize revenue for the site while continuing to own and

maintain a first-class facility to service the needs of businesses and consumers

and sports teams.

(2) To replace. To sell the site for redevelopment and replace the

facility with a structure that can accommodate the displaced sporting and other

events through a P3 process or other mechanism.

(3) To remove. To sell the facility for redevelopment and allow

market forces to take care of the events displaced.

PavCo is investigating the feasibility of each of these three

options. They will include the recognition

[ Page 7832 ]

that, as I said, the facility is contracted for use to 2012 through its

regular booking process.

G. Gentner: Was this study or review conducted by the

ministry, or was it conducted by PavCo?

Hon. S. Hagen: This is not a study. This is a process that

has just started. The new chair is reviewing it and, I'm sure, will report to me

and to the board of PavCo with his recommendations.

G. Gentner: Which consultation firm or party is working on

developing these three proposals?

Hon. S. Hagen: None at the moment.

G. Gentner: Has B.C. Place or PavCo met with a

representative of Concord Pacific relative to the sale or redevelopment of B.C.

Place?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told by senior staff that any

discussions that go on are not about the sale; they are about the future of B.C.

Place Stadium. I am told that no discussions have been held with any developers

about the future of B.C. Place.

The Chair: Member, noting the hour.

G. Gentner: One last question, hon. Chair, if I may.

Has the ministry or B.C. Place or PavCo seen blueprints drawn up

for the redevelopment of stadium lands?

Hon. S. Hagen: There are no blueprints dealing with the

future of the property at B.C. Place.

[1150]

G. Gentner: A quick one, hon. Chair.

Has the ministry or the corporation seen any sketches relative to

the redevelopment of B.C. Place lands?

Hon. S. Hagen: Apparently, there are sketches that have

been done about the enhancement of the facility, not for replacing or selling

the facility.

N. Macdonald: I move that the committee, rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:51 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on

the Internet.

Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the

Internet.

Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

channel guide • Broadcast

schedule

Copyright ©

2007: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175